And he knows this how? He needs to provide the address of this "2-bedroom home somewhere w/ 52 voters" or it's all a crock.
you do realize that has nothing to do with "Trump's lawyers" SCOTUS would not hear because of standingIt's not the Dems' fault that trump lawyers are as dumb as stumps. Btw the article is from an Aussie news site. Hope the dachshund dolt reads it.
“The state of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution,” [SCOTUS] said in a brief order shutting down the case.
“Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognisable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.”
That order says nothing at all about the merits of Mr Paxton’s voter fraud claims, which were broadly the same as Mr Trump’s. Some context is required here. When a plaintiff files a lawsuit – and this is not just true of election cases, by the way – they must convince the court that they have a right under the law to do so. The legal term for this is “standing”. If the plaintiff does not have that right, the case fails at the first hurdle and everything else becomes irrelevant. That is what happened here.
Texas was trying to sue four other states – Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin – over their handling of mail-in ballots for the presidential election. Under the US Constitution, however, each state gets to decide how it runs its own election. Texas might not like how, say, Pennsylvania chooses to do things, but legally it has no say on the matter. The only way to challenge Pennsylvania’s rules is from within Pennsylvania."
https://www.news.com.au/world/north...t/news-story/d4f1fd532cfa6e9ccebc45793f0f6ab3
it's not "telling" the case contend your election process was corrupt (moving postmarks without leg authority, reduced sig verification etc.) to the point that process "damaged" the other states who ran a clean election without those shenanigans
It's not the Dems' fault that trump lawyers are as dumb as stumps. Btw the article is from an Aussie news site. Hope the dachshund dolt reads it.
“The state of Texas’s motion for leave to file a bill of complaint is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution,” [SCOTUS] said in a brief order shutting down the case.
“Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognisable interest in the manner in which another state conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.”
That order says nothing at all about the merits of Mr Paxton’s voter fraud claims, which were broadly the same as Mr Trump’s. Some context is required here. When a plaintiff files a lawsuit – and this is not just true of election cases, by the way – they must convince the court that they have a right under the law to do so. The legal term for this is “standing”. If the plaintiff does not have that right, the case fails at the first hurdle and everything else becomes irrelevant. That is what happened here.
Texas was trying to sue four other states – Pennsylvania, Georgia, Michigan and Wisconsin – over their handling of mail-in ballots for the presidential election. Under the US Constitution, however, each state gets to decide how it runs its own election. Texas might not like how, say, Pennsylvania chooses to do things, but legally it has no say on the matter. The only way to challenge Pennsylvania’s rules is from within Pennsylvania."
https://www.news.com.au/world/north...t/news-story/d4f1fd532cfa6e9ccebc45793f0f6ab3
when do you think the cases will be heard?
good list. basically Trump voters were shut out without hearing redress